Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) distanced himself from chief strategist Charlie Black’s comments that a terrorist attack would be a “big advantage” to the McCain campaign. “If he said that, and I do not know the context, I strenuously disagree,” McCain told reporters.
Later in the day on MSNBC, former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke told Keith Olbermann that if McCain was serious in his outrage, he should fire Black immediately. He also criticized Black for basically encouraging terrorists such as Osama bin Laden to manipulate American politics:
CLARKE: Well, Charlie Black knows a lot about politics but he doesn’t know much about terrorism. If he did, he would know that Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and all the al Qaeda leadership, watch U.S. politics very closely. We’ve even had cases where in interviews, bin Laden quoted opinion polls from European public opinion polls.
So, yes, they understand that they can manipulate politics as they tried to in the Spanish election with the attacks there. And to say, “Yes, you can manipulate our politics, come and do it,” is an invitation that the McCain campaign shouldn’t be anywhere near.
Watch it:
Unfortunately, conservatives are often putting out such invitations. Last week, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton said that if Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is elected president, the United States would “simply have more embassy bombings, more bombings of our warships like the Cole, more World Trade Center attacks.” Rep. Steve King (R-IA) claimed that such a result would lead to terrorists declaring “victory in this war on terror.”
Transcript:
RICHARD CLARKE, FMR. NSC COUNTERTERROR CHIEF: It`s great to be here, Keith.
OLBERMANN: Did Charlie Black just erase any remaining line between counterterrorism and scaring people for political gain?
CLARKE: I think that line was erased in 2004. It`s been erased in every election since 9/11. Now, what Charlie Black did is reveal their thinking, not that they wanted terrorist attack, but that they do plan to run by scaring us. They`re using the same playbook they`ve been using for years because it works.
And if McCain is sincere in saying that he`s shocked, that there`s gambling going on in his casino, then he ought to part with Charlie Black. I mean, Charlie Black ought to be gone tomorrow morning so that we can say, once and for all, that this campaign is not going to be a campaign about fear and about saying that one guy is soft on terrorism and if you vote for him, there will be another terrorist attack; all the sorts of things that we`ve heard in the past.
OLBERMANN: Yes, just somebody once saying, this is not going to be a mixture of politics, presidential politics and the necessary counterterrorism because this is the darkest part of it. You can argue the politics forever and blame game forever, but — the darkest part of this, I think, and I`d like your opinion on it, is that we`re necessarily faced with, if there are any legitimate warnings or any plots that come up between now and November, they now have to be seen through the prism of what Black has just said.
CLARKE: Well, that`s right. And the fact that we now know from Tom Ridge and others, that when there were threats released in 2004, well, they were largely exaggerated and blown up. So, we`re now in the situation where the American people won`t believe a warning, if there were a real one — but McCain can stop all of that. He can stop talking about Hamas has endorsed Obama; he can stop all of this sort of innuendoes and go to the issues-based campaign he said he was going to do.
And the way he does that is by tomorrow morning announcing the resignation of Charlie Black and saying that he wants to run on the issues and not as the “scare candidate,” not as the scaremonger and not as the scarecrow. […]
CLARKE: Well, Charlie Black knows a lot about politics but he doesn’t know much about terrorism. If he did, he would know that Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and all the al Qaeda leadership, watch U.S. politics very closely. We’ve even had cases where in interviews, bin Laden quoted opinion polls from European public opinion polls.
So, yes, they understand that they can manipulate politics as they tried to in the Spanish election with the attacks there. And to say, “Yes, you can manipulate our politics, come and do it,” is an invitation that the McCain campaign shouldn’t be anywhere near.
Black speaks for McCain. Period.
Juan Williams has already been on NPR to say that McCain has resolved this issue. So move along. Nothing to see here.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:55 amClarke tells the truth.
All the Bush/McBush MO is based upon FEAR, not policy of HELPING Americans.
Bush and McBush are TRAITORS to the USA.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:55 amCharlie Black’s comments were the equivalent of Bush’s “bring ‘em on” taunt.
Thankfully, most Americans are tiring of this endless warring for endless profiteering.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:55 amBOO!
June 24th, 2008 at 10:56 amScared?
Vote Republican.
Bombing Johnnie wins if there’s an (another) terra attack.
The SCUM (SoCalledUnbiasedMedia) can be relied upon to spin it as a failure of “LIBERAL” nerve, and chivvy the rightards into violence against the people who interfered or criticized the Busheviks for torturing ‘rag-haids.’ If it’s scary/bloody enough, the rightards will come after us with nooses and dogs…
June 24th, 2008 at 10:57 amClarke may not have gone far enough when he said “Charlie Black knows a lot about politics but he doesn’t know much about terrorism.” It’s possible there are political operatives that know a great deal about terrorism — to the point where they WOULD actively encourage Al Qaeda to make another move on our country.
The Republicans, whether they directly caused or influenced 9/11 or not, realize that attack was manna from heaven for them and for Bushco. Even though the idea is appalling to decent people everywhere, it’s not too much of a stretch to think there are some whose moral compass is so twisted that they would want a repeat of such an attack if they felt it was the only way to ensure a political victory.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:57 amWhen your whole platform depends on a perpetual “war on terror”, you come up with this shite. To quote Thomas Paine, it would be “ignorance or something worse” to make Black’s claim.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:57 amI am always fascinated by the interpretation AQ puts on our elections. Clearly, AQ knows very well their actions affect our politics. Remember Bin Laden releasing an espeically inflammatory tape the Friday before the 2004 Presidential election?
That tape no doubt helped Bush. But the great existential question of this issue is, did he do it on purpose, or was it a backfire?
An argument can be made for either position, but I think we grossly overestimate AQ’s understanding of our mindset. For example, if you remember the famous dinner party tape of UBL a few months after 9-11, his guest suggested the attacks would cause a revolution in the US and that the success of the attack had sown massive fear in the US that cause us to withdrawal from the Mid-East, when in fact the exact opposite was true.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:06 amThis is sheer desperation. The Cons are going to lose BIG in November, they know it, and are now scraping the bottom of the barrel with the knife they know best - fear-mongering.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:06 amWhat terrorist threat color code are we at right now?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:07 amIt is a standard Repug tactic; Let someone else keep that crap flowing, have McDepends stand up and say ‘What, he said that, I did’nt authorize it’ but the fact is, it is still swirling around the MSM toilet bowl, leaving those familiar Repug turd streaks.
It is a trademarked product of KKKarl Rove, just ask the supporters of Ann Richards in Texas, the ‘other McCain in 2000 and the ‘Swiftboated Kerry in ‘04.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:08 ammisshusseinmolly Says: The Republicans, whether they directly caused or influenced 9/11 or not, realize that attack was manna from heaven for them and for Bushco.
This is actually one of my questions in regard to the new FISA bill. If we knew conclusively in 2000 that Osama bin Laden was determined to attack us within our own borders without having illegally wiretapped thousands of innocent Americans to find that out, then why, suddenly, is the only means for ascertaining information on terrorist activity through the wiretapping of innocent Americans?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:09 amKeltoi Says:
Remember Bin Laden releasing an espeically inflammatory tape the Friday before the 2004 Presidential election?
That tape no doubt helped Bush. But the great existential question of this issue is, did he do it on purpose, or was it a backfire?
Osama bin Laden always puts out an inflammatory tape in late October of even numbered years. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence caused by his production company schedule.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:10 amDaryll Says:
Hussein Obama for President.
Hey Daryll, welcome to the good side. Must have got tired of the Dark side, huh?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:10 amDaryll Says: Hussein Obama for President.
Being a black Christian yourself, you should know better than to bear false witness Daryll. Shame on you.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:12 amWell I am glad to see that Daryll has come around and given up on that idiotic Huckabee thing. BTW: you still haven’t explained how your god could be such a F-up what with it’s totally incorrect predictions. What a half assed god. Can’t even predict the future. You my friend have a Loser god!!!
June 24th, 2008 at 11:12 amGood for you Daryll! Did you have an epiphany over the weekend?
Hussein Mary
June 24th, 2008 at 11:13 amYesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) distanced himself from chief strategist Charlie Black’s comments that a terrorist attack would be a “big advantage” to the McCain campaign.
Hasn’t it always been the conservatives accusing liberals of using bad news to their advantage, like wishing the economy to turn bad so Bush will be blamed or high casualties in Iraq so Americans will turn against the war?
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 24th, 2008 at 11:14 amThe success of the attack did sow massive fear in the US. The right used it to attack someone else….not Bin Laden.
The exact opposite is true so far but it’s not over. We will leave the middle east because we are there for the wrong reasons, doing the wrong things. We are our own worst enemy. Thanks k….you helped.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:17 amI think that the Republicans are dreaming if they think another attack will help them. America has finally awakened from its long deep sleep and they now know who was responsible for 911 (either directly or indirectly through incompetence). So, if there is another attack I think the reaction is going to be “WTF, we lost over 4,000 soldiers, gave up our civil liberties and put our economy into the toilet and we got hit again”.
There still is the 25% who will believe anything that Republicans tell them, but the rest of us are on to them and aren’t going to buy it that another hit would be the fault of the Democrats, or that only the Republicans could keep us safe. How stupid would that be to think that a party that hasn’t kept us safe during two attacks is going to be able to keep us safe from a third.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:17 amDaryll Says:
I refuse to vote for a Presidential candidate who is endorsed by infidels,
You now hate the infidels? Daryll Hussein, have you become a jihadist?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:18 amdbadass Says:
What terrorist threat color code are we at right now?
Pink, in honor of Daryll’s epiphany. Thanks for asking…
June 24th, 2008 at 11:19 amDaryll Says: It was a sarcastic comment. As President Bush stated, I refuse to vote for a Presidential candidate who is endorsed by infidels, terrorists, communists and those who are simply against a free market/free trade.
Again with more false witnessing. Satan is sweeping off a very hot place for you in Hell…
June 24th, 2008 at 11:20 ambarackocarter Says:
got anything…seriously?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:20 amDaryll, did it ever occur to you that the “endorsement” of terrorists for a U.S. Presidential candidate is a weapon, designed to move you away from the candidate that they fear? These guys want a President to fight with, to enhance their own esteem and standing, to be a rallying cry for recruitment.
You wear your vote like a suicide vest if you allow a terrorist organization’s “endorsement” to sway you.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:21 amDaryll Says:
upside99 Says:
——————————————————————————–
Daryll Says:
Hussein Obama for President.
Hey Daryll, welcome to the good side. Must have got tired of the Dark side, huh?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:10 am Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
——————————————————————————–
It was a sarcastic comment. As President Bush stated, I refuse to vote for a Presidential candidate who is endorsed by infidels, terrorists, communists and those who are simply against a free market/free trade.
WOW!! Still carrying sewage for Dubya; you are one blinded, stoo-pid, but loyal BushCo butt-buddy, I will give you that.
Gonna be a fun time for you come January, right?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:21 amDaryll Says:
Isn’t it true that your party believes that terrorists in Gitmo should have a chance to appeal their case?
It’s true that three Republicans on the Supreme Court think so.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:22 ambarackocarter Says: It is true that the terrorists monitor U.S. Politics. If it wasn’t obvious enough before, it became even more obvious when Hamas endorsed Obama.
They endorsed him because they thought he’d be open-minded, and then he made his speech defending Israel by any means necessary and they retracted their endorsement. Try to keep up with the facts before you post and look even more foolish.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:22 ambarackocarter:
June 24th, 2008 at 11:23 amUnless you wish to hold Daryll’s jockstrap, you might want to just get out of the way. Some have it, some don’t. You don’t
We have God’s law.
We have the USA’s laws.
We have Bush’s laws.
We have Republican laws.
And then we have Daryll’s laws: ‘Isn’t it true that your party believes that terrorists in Gitmo should have a chance to appeal their case?’
Yes, Daryll, ‘our party’ believes in rule of law. Yours doesn’t. God is not happy with your party. God will punish you infidels. God is pissed, has PMS, a handgun and he’s looking for YOU!
June 24th, 2008 at 11:25 amDarryl — endorsed by infidels, terrorists
The real terrorists want to die and Obama wants to kill them. You know, the ones who committed 9/11.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:25 amPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Daryll, did it ever occur to you that the “endorsement” of terrorists for a U.S. Presidential candidate is a weapon, designed to move you away from the candidate that they fear?
No, Daryll trusts the terrorists. He’s sure they would never lie to him. Daryll doesn’t trust the lying infidels.
Daryll Says:
I refuse to vote for a Presidential candidate who is endorsed by infidels,
June 24th, 2008 at 11:26 amAnother attack on America will clearly show that the War on Terror is an abysmal failure.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:26 amDaryll Says: Don’t forget Rual Castro, Al Queda, Hugo Chavez and, possibly, the Iranian President. Hussein is bad news for America. Even Hillary knows it.
Daryll WANTS to go to Hell. Daryll loves Satan.
Keep bearing false witness Daryll and ‘eternity’ for you will be very, very tropical….
June 24th, 2008 at 11:26 amCharlie Black’s comments only makes sense if you accept the premise that President Obama is the worst thing that can happen to Al Qaeda. I accept it, and it appears that Black accepts it. What a sick POS.
And Daryll, your Jesus level is a little low this morning, time to go blow the good pastor and fill it up again.
If I were a Christian, I would search out this Daryll freak and get him to STFU. He makes Christians look like very stupid and evil.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:26 amMy question to you, do you love terrorists?
No, I have no love for you, Darryl.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:27 amMcCain’s staff is wishing for an attack on this country. Disgraceful. Daryll how strongly are you going to condemn the words coming out of the McCain camp?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:27 amDaryll Says: Isn’t it true that your party believes that terrorists in Gitmo should have a chance to appeal their case?
Prove they are terrorists.
Being Muslim no more makes them terrorists than being black makes you a criminal. Get it?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:28 ambarackocarter
Smarter trolls, please?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:29 amDaryll says: I do not support bombing others as a method of conversion.
Really? I thought otherwise, given all the stink bombs you let off here on a regular basis.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:29 amDaryll Hussein Says:
I do not support bombing others as a method of conversion.
Interesting. Please tell us how you intend to proceed with your jihad against the infidels.
Daryll Hussein Says:
I refuse to vote for a Presidential candidate who is endorsed by infidels,
June 24th, 2008 at 11:30 amInteresting that you are this ignorant. We mostly want them to have the right to a trial. That would have to come before an appeal. It’s only been 5 years and no trial…whatup?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:30 amAdolf Daryll is the perfect Poster Child for the 23%ers. He is gullible, blinded by the Repug message, afraid of anything he doesn’t understand, hides behind his version of religion and is afraid to look under his bed, lest there be boogeymen under there.
And of course, he defends the millions killed by the Xian armies in the Crusades. So I guess we have to add “Hypocrite” to his list of behaviors.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:30 amBut if you allow those held at Gitmo to appeal their cases some may prove they aren’t terrorists. How embarrassing for this administration. The nerve of some people thinking that a country founded on the rights of individuals would allow individuals some rights is absurd.
See Daryll, sarcasm can be used by all.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:31 amMy question to you, do you love terrorists?
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. (Matthew 5:38-44)”
June 24th, 2008 at 11:31 amDarryl — My question to you, do you love terrorists?
I have a question for a second answer. Why do you hate people who haven’t been proved to be terrorists?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:31 amnanlichi Says:
Charlie Black’s comments only makes sense if you accept the premise that President Obama is the worst thing that can happen to Al Qaeda. I accept it, and it appears that Black accepts it. What a sick POS.
Can you explain your thinking here? I think I follow you, but want to make sure before I reply. I gather you think AQ fears diplomacy more than military action?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:32 amDaryll Says
June 24th, 2008 at 11:14 am
“I refuse to vote for a Presidential candidate who is endorsed by infidels, terrorists…”
_________________________________________
So you admit your voting decision is swayed by terrorists. This basically means you allow terrorists to mess with your mind. Whodathunkit?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:32 amThe bigger question is Daryll, why would a Republican- appointed by Reagan- expert in counter-terrorism, be saying that McCain and his advisor’s are hindering our efforts to combat terrorism if they weren’t doing just that?
Is it true that your party ignores the opinions of your own experts when they conflict with your desired outcome or contradict your actions?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:32 amI think Darryl’s keyboard is probably bright orange - seeing as how he sits there all day eating Cheetos.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:33 amHe makes Christians look like very stupid and evil.
no, just stupid…which isn’t terribly difficult…
June 24th, 2008 at 11:33 amThe last thing al Qaeda wants is a US President who isn’t a scaredie little puke who won’t overreact, overreach, overextend our military, and provide recruiting bonuses for radicals.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:34 amChuck Feney Says
June 24th, 2008 at 11:31 am
My question to you, do you love terrorists? [from Daryll]
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. (Matthew 5:38-44)”
_________________________________________________
You’re making an assumption that Daryll actually READS the bible. He only reads the parts that he thinks validate his homophobia. He doesn’t care about anything that Jesus actually said.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:35 amDaryll Says:
come aboard the Straight Talk Express.
I hate to tell you this, but McCain traded in the Straight Talk Express for the K Street Local.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:35 amWhat in the fu(k do you not understand about the United States of America? WE ARE A COUNTRY OF LAWS, NOT MEN. So yes, I believe they should have their day in court just as any other accused criminal gets to have their day in court. Let the courts PROVE that they are terrorists.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:36 amParodyll!!!!!!
How may we help you with your inconsistencies and hypocrisies?
Now come over here and give me some sugah!!!
June 24th, 2008 at 11:36 amWhat AQ wants is an enemy to unify the radical muslims against. Bush and now McCain are that unifier.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:36 amSt D. Says Hussein is soft. They know that they will have unlimited access to our infrastructure because Hussein will cut defense funding (especially contractor who support this great country
Ah, so the truth comes out. You’re scared of losing your phoney baloney tester job for the DOD. Wake up, D, you’re Oral Robert’s IT degree isn’t worth a plug nickel in the real world.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:36 amDaryll, how’s your west coast tour of gay fraternities coming along?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:39 amWrong, our purpose is to protect the American people.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:39 amThen why won’t you listen to Mr. Clarke, who is actually a respected expert on protecting the American people from terrorists?
Do you have something against intelligent people?
Expertise?
Is actually knowing what you’re doing too elitist for republicans?
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/rumsfeld-hussein.jpg
June 24th, 2008 at 11:40 amRUCerious Says
June 24th, 2008 at 11:34 am
The last thing al Qaeda wants is a US President who isn’t a scaredie little puke who won’t overreact, overreach, overextend our military, and provide recruiting bonuses for radicals.
________________________________________________
Exactly. Their juiciest wet dream would be to get an extension of Bushco. After all, Bushco has gone on to destroy America in ways they probably never even dreamed. 9/11 only started the ball rolling.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:40 amDarryl — Wrong, our purpose is to protect the American people. Not give terrorists steak dinners and a tour of our country.
Who’s “our”? If that means the Republican party, you’ve had your chance and failed. Now stop running the same stupid commercial.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:41 amDaryll Says:
unbelievable Says:
——————————————————————————–
Daryll Says: Isn’t it true that your party believes that terrorists in Gitmo should have a chance to appeal their case?
Prove they are terrorists.
Being Muslim no more makes them terrorists than being black makes you a criminal. Get it?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:28 am Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
——————————————————————————–
You sir have shown your racism.
And, you Adolf Daryll have proven you are not only a racist but a hypocritical racist. Read what unbelievable said above and THINK about it? OK?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:42 amWhere can I get this steak dinner?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:42 amPlease put Jeb as the VP slot. PLEASE!!!!!!!
June 24th, 2008 at 11:43 amI am just sitting here in awe of Daryll’s performance today.
He is all over the place, making absurd comments on any number of subjects, and all of them entertaining.
I don’t know if Daryll’s been working out on a Stairmaster, or if the RNC has decided to up the funding for the Troll Dept. but this is more than a Krispy Kreme sugar-rush fueling our Daryll today.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:44 amDaryll Says: I love everyone, but I refuse to let any group terrorize or destroy our country. We are coming up on the 4th of July, the day of Independence. We must secure our freedom.
For the last 6 years Bush has been “securing our freedom” by hurting other people. That hasn’t worked. Time for diplomacy, which does work.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:44 amDaryll Says: President Bush has a different perspective, and I trust him over the democrats. Oh, I hear Jeb Bush may be a possible candidate for the VP spot.
It doesn’t matter what the fu(k the president thinks Daryll or what his perspective may or may not be. The FACT is that we are a country of laws. Not men. And this country certainly isn’t a dictatorship.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:46 amDaryll Hussein Says:
Wrong, Hussein is soft. They know that they will have unlimited access to our infrastructure because Hussein will cut defense funding (especially contractor who support this great country), which is a normal democratic tatic. They want none of Senator McCain because he’s a no nonsense guy, who lived through being a Prisoner of War. This is why he is a Maverick, who is about straight talk to the American people. Stop riding the horse and come aboard the Straight Talk Express.
Daryll Hussein lives in a fantasy world.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:46 amHere’s my fantasy world:
I’m a black Christian male (in name only), with homosexual tendencies. I’m a computer programmer doing “secret” stuff for the government. I periodically bare false witness on progressive blogs. That is, when I’m not vacationing in Brazil observing some fine bootie (with my new wife whom I can never accurately give a time frame for marriage ), or hunting baby animals in Northern Indiana.
Oh, and George Bush is god! How do I know? Because Huckabee told me! George Bush has kept us safe from the smelly brown men with rags.
Hugs and Kisses!
Daryll Says: President Bush has a different perspective, and I trust him over the democrats. Oh, I hear Jeb Bush may be a possible candidate for the VP spot.
Bush’s perspective has FAILED on all accounts.
Obama, who WILL be the next President, won’t pick Bush for his VP.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:46 amDaryll
will you accept our lord jesus christ
as your savior?
good luck.
*
open your heart
if you dare.
*
June 24th, 2008 at 11:46 amKeltoi,
Black is positing that an attack by AQ would tip the balance towards McCain. The only way that AQ would want to do that would be if they wanted to see McCain as President rather than Obama. I believe (and Black seems to believe) that AQ prefers McCain because that would be a continuation of Bush’s disastrous policies.
I think that Bush’s policies have been a bigger boon to Al Qaeda than they could ever have dreamed of. His discretionary war in Iraq elevated Al Qaeda to the status of a worthwhile enemy of the USA, therefore a strong entity in the minds of the Muslim world. What a recruiting tool.
I don’t think Obama is going to be soft and just negotiate. I think he will fight AQ, but will pick his fights carefully. I may be wrong, but a continuation of Bush’s policies is definitely wrong. Even if Obama were a black box (to use that metaphor) I would prefer him over the devil we know.
Probably more answer than you were looking for, sorry for the verbose response. If I don’t respond for a while, it’s not that I don’t love you bro…it’s that I have a meeting in 10 minutes.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:47 amSaul Daryll, why do you persecute the children of God so? You wish to torture and imprison those who may have been wrongly accused, making yourself an agent of the deceivers and the Deceiver. You bear false witness against Barack Obama and malign the name given to him by his parents, thus dishonoring them. You refuse to see the log of hypocrisy in your own eye as you attempt to woo others to God, showing not the love of Christ but the self-righteousness of a Son of the Pharisees. Heal thyself.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:48 amDaryll Says
June 24th, 2008 at 11:39 am
We are coming up on the 4th of July, the day of Independence. We must secure our freedom.
__________________________________________
You’re right. And the first step to securing our freedom is to restore the freedoms Bushco took away from us. The SCOTUS took a step in the right direction when they restored habeus corpus to those we have labelled “enemy combatants”. Now, we just need to get rid of the Patriot Act, the Protect America Act, eliminate warrantless spying on Americans, and restore the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments to our constitution. THEN we may have secured our freedom.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:48 amAccording to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks:
“Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?
Telling the truth 16%
Hiding something 53%
Mostly lying 28%
Not sure 3%”
The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job.
With this poll in mind I think the Rethugs should can the terrorist attack comments.
If another attack does occur then rope off the attack and treat it like a crime investigation. No hauling away evidence ASAP this time.
911 was an inside job. Anyone who thinks otherwise at this point is a fool.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:48 amDaryll Hussein has his suicide vote strapped on and is ready to push the button form another term of Bushco. His fervent prayer is “Death to America”. He hates us for our freedoms.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:49 amHas Charlie Black resigned? No. He is still with the McCain campaign.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:49 amThat’s all you need to know.
Black said what most Republicans really believe has to happen for them to have a chance for the GE.
Reverend Daryll I. Wannabe III
Political & Prophetical prostecizing consultant to God himself.
Nice work if you can get it.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:50 amralph the wonder llama:
June 24th, 2008 at 11:52 amI agree that there is some real magic here but I continue to feel Daryll’s best work is when he restricts himself to the zany god stuff. I respect his absurdity but I still think he lacks the range and depth needed to expand into these other realms.
Daryll~ Why exactly should we discount the opinion of Richard Clarke re: Terrorism/Terrorists in favor of the opinion of George W. Bush or John McCain?
I understand that you do, just wondering what makes you so sure that they have a better handle on the situation than the actual expert who has devoted his life to studying the issue… thoughts?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:52 amChristains in America have done this by themselves. Any Christain who is not loudly denouncing the war mongering preachers who illegally infuenced voters from the pulpit to vote for bush are guilty! Christains are currently part of the problem, not the solution.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:52 amDarryl sez: “We must secure our freedom.”
At least we agree that the FISA compromise bill that would eviscerate the Fourth Amendment is bad news. Tell your senators now!
June 24th, 2008 at 11:55 amdbadass,
Yea, but Daryll did come quick out of the gate this morning …. ON F Y R E !!!
It was like watching a fully Mento-laden soda bottle erupt.
Gotta take our entertainment where we can, in these troubled times!
June 24th, 2008 at 11:56 amDaryll
the lord is calling upon you
to testify.
be ye not afraid.
good luck.
*
June 24th, 2008 at 11:58 amdbadass, you’re right, there’s no question that Daryll is in his element when condemning others in God’s eyes — particularly when condemning homosexuals.
No other troll can touch him on those threads.
But I’m impressed by the versatility he’s showing today. It’s not the same old material he’s been leaning on for months. This is a new Daryll — leaner, more agile than we’ve seen before.
I suspect he’s gotten new writers on staff, and that he’s taken some improv classes, maybe at the Learning Annex. Whatever he’s doing, it’s working. Daryll is a Whole New Troll™.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:59 amDaryll~
A thought,
Is it possible that McCain’s people, truly believing that terrorists would prefer an Obama presidency, have come out and said that another terrorist attack would only benefit McCain in the hopes of preventing a terrorist attack?
Perhaps you guys are sincere in your beliefs and really are concerned for the American people and are willing to sacrfice the campaign of your candidate in order to keep American’s safe?
Or is it more likely that your desperatly trying to hold onto power through fear-mongering, and undermining our efforts against terrorism at the same time… yeah, that sounds more like the Republican party I know…
June 24th, 2008 at 11:59 amKe;toi @ #8
“a few months after 9-11, his guest suggested the attacks would cause a revolution in the US and that the success of the attack had sown massive fear in the US that cause us to withdrawal from the Mid-East, when in fact the exact opposite was true”
Of course they were flattering Osama (and themselves)rather than making any rational informed predictions.
“I think we grossly overestimate AQ’s understanding of our mindset….”
I’m not sure which “we” you are referring to, but it’s evident that publicly the Republicans both underestimate their existential opponents (”…I doubt six months” and “we will bring Bin Laden to justice”) and overestimate them at the same time ( “smoking gun…mushroom cloud” and “they’ll follow us home” and so on)–which is of course the reult of conginitive dissonance, more popularly understood to be pure hysteria if not downright lunacy.
Consequently any estimation or ‘analysis offered up by ANY Republican is guaranteed to be utter nonsense.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:59 amDaryll Hussein says:
“…I refuse to let any group terrorize or destroy our country. We are coming up on the 4th of July, the day of Independence. We must secure our freedom.”
Then why do you support a political party that embraces the use of fear on it’s own citizens in it’s traitorous attempts at forwarding it’s selfish, criminal agenda? They have dessimated our military, allowed our infrastructure to dangerously decline, raped our treasury to feather the pockets of their corporate friends and undermined our Constitution. I believe that if you stop drinking the kool-aid and took a few steps back maybe you would see that all of your anger has been misguided. it is the people that you support tirelessly that go against everything you seem to believe in.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:03 pmDaryll Hussein Says:
President Bush has a different perspective, and I trust him over the democrats. Oh, I hear Jeb Bush may be a possible candidate for the VP spot.
Daryll Hussein, did you know that both George and Jeb Bush are infidels?
Daryll Hussein Says
“I refuse to vote for a Presidential candidate who is endorsed by infidels,”
June 24th, 2008 at 12:04 pmI think the closer Daryll gets to losing his patronage job the more inspired he gets. I suspect he’s pretty close to peaking now that his job loss is all but inevitable. Of course his bosses are still trying to convince him he can make a differencebut once they start to abandon ship Daryll’s downward spiral will be rapid. And those will be the really good times.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:05 pmFred Says
June 24th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Christains in America have done this by themselves. Any Christain who is not loudly denouncing the war mongering preachers who illegally infuenced voters from the pulpit to vote for bush are guilty! Christains are currently part of the problem, not the solution.
____________________________________________
Not all of us Christians are part of the problem. Many of us spend a lot of our energy both inside the church and outside denouncing ANY warmongers, but especially preachers and others who exploit religion to call for war, advance bigotry, and push a hate-filled agenda. Those in my church find that especially offensive, because we don’t believe this is what Jesus stood for. Unfortunately, we don’t get as much press as creeps like Hagee and Pat Robertson do.
Speaking of offensive — is your misspelling of “Christian” an honest misspelling, or is it a slur of some kind? As a Christian, I don’t believe that I “stain” anything. At least, not like the stains our current presidential administration has left on this country.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:06 pmYou may be correct Mr. Wonder Llama but I think we will have to hold off until we see whether or not he can sustain himself over time. What the hell is a barackocarter?
June 24th, 2008 at 12:06 pmnanlichi Says:
I think that Bush’s policies have been a bigger boon to Al Qaeda than they could ever have dreamed of. His discretionary war in Iraq elevated Al Qaeda to the status of a worthwhile enemy of the USA, therefore a strong entity in the minds of the Muslim world. What a recruiting tool.
Well, again, this is one of two possibilities and I don’t know if we can ever know for sure which it is. If you are Osama, weren’t things better for you personally when you had an entire government (Taliban) at your beck and call, a fortress in Tora Bora where thousands of guards and henchmen were at your disposal and tens of thousands of NATO troops weren’t in the region?
Also, if UBL wanted to affect US elections, why didn’t he launch the 911 attacks BEFORE the 2000 elections if he was so afraid of Democratic presidents, because, by your logic, such an attack would have helped Bush.
It is one of those quetions that can’t be answered, ergo very fun to debate, but I think it is a stretch to assume AQ fears Obama more than McCain.
As far as Black’s comments go, McCain instantly repudiated them and Black later withdrew them and apologized. That may not be good enough for some, but I definitely do not think for one instant that McCain is wanting to see America attacked. There is no basis for believing that.
Probably more answer than you were looking for, sorry for the verbose response. If I don’t respond for a while, it’s not that I don’t love you bro…it’s that I have a meeting in 10 minutes.
No worries, sometimes work is sadly work-like.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:08 pmDaryll Says:
I hope McChange doesn’t win the nomination. He is a canker sore to the GOP.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Daryll has herpes, apparently.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:10 pmdbadass Says: What the hell is a barackocarter?
Sounds like a gadget RUCerious may have invented. Do you see an electrical plug on it, or is it powered by wind? Bullshit?
June 24th, 2008 at 12:12 pmAh ha!
Also, if UBL wanted to affect US elections, why didn’t he launch the 911 attacks BEFORE the 2000 elections if he was so afraid of Democratic presidents, because, by your logic, such an attack would have helped Bush.
Were they even ready, operationally speaking, to attack the US at that time?
June 24th, 2008 at 12:13 pmZimzone, a barackocarter is powered by methane gas. Can’t you smell it?
June 24th, 2008 at 12:15 pmKeltoi Says:
If you are Osama, weren’t things better for you personally when you had an entire government (Taliban) at your beck and call, a fortress in Tora Bora where thousands of guards and henchmen were at your disposal and tens of thousands of NATO troops weren’t in the region?
Did you know that bin Laden and the Taliban have the entire northern part of Pakistan as a safe haven, endorsed by George W. Bush? They are much safer in Warziristan, than they were in Afghanistan, and they have a huge population of radical Pakistanis, and Saudi Wahabis from which to draw recruits and supplies.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:16 pmIf you are Osama, weren’t things better for you personally when you had an entire government (Taliban) at your beck and call, a fortress in Tora Bora where thousands of guards and henchmen were at your disposal and tens of thousands of NATO troops weren’t in the region?
If he didn’t “take the fight” to the infidels, how long would his followers stick around? He gathered fighters to attack the hated americans, not just talk about it.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:16 pmAlso, if UBL wanted to affect US elections, why didn’t he launch the 911 attacks BEFORE the 2000 elections if he was so afraid of Democratic presidents, because, by your logic, such an attack would have helped Bush.
And the attack on the USS Cole was…
June 24th, 2008 at 12:18 pmI wonder if there is pressure to sic the Fisa court on these terrorists who disguise themselves as Americans?
June 24th, 2008 at 12:20 pmIf FISA is the solution that Congress seems is necessary to solve their terrorist problems they should demand that people who envoke such thoughts are scrutinized for terrorist activity. Otherwise FISA is ineffectual from its onset and should not be passed by people who are covering up for such statements.
——————————————————————————–
barfly Says:
Also, if UBL wanted to affect US elections, why didn’t he launch the 911 attacks BEFORE the 2000 elections if he was so afraid of Democratic presidents, because, by your logic, such an attack would have helped Bush.
Were they even ready, operationally speaking, to attack the US at that time?
An excellent question, again unknowable. Certainly, the planning started during the Clinton years. There was also the Cole attack prior to the elections, but bad as that was, it didn’t really register in our domestic politics, much.
Again, the opacity of the motives of AQ, how they really think, is very deep. Are they saying one thing hoping the opposite happens? Inviting America to negotiate, knowing it will make us come after them harder? Do they really think we would negotiate?
When I read Khalid Sheik Mohammads bio, I thought, here is a guy educated in the West, he really does understand us. But now, based on his recent testimony at Gitmo, I think, maybe not, maybe he is a wild eyed fanatic who never did understand us. Impossible to say.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:20 pmdbadass Says:
What the hell is a barackocarter?
I thought it was brackometer, a specialized tool that measures the turbidity of Repug pond scum.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:24 pmKeltoi Says:
Well, again, this is one of two possibilities and I don’t know if we can ever know for sure which it is. If you are Osama, weren’t things better for you personally when you had an entire government (Taliban) at your beck and call, a fortress in Tora Bora where thousands of guards and henchmen were at your disposal and tens of thousands of NATO troops weren’t in the region?
You’re thinking along pretty narrow lines, Keltoi. Bin Laden had no profile at all while hiding among the Taliban. He couldn’t be a hero or a martyr and was likely not featured on many t-shirts. The invasion of Afghanistan (and, subsequently, Iraq) just validated all of his claims about the West and elevated him to folk hero status among his chosen audience.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:25 pmshoeless Says:
——————————————————————————–
Keltoi Says:
If you are Osama, weren’t things better for you personally when you had an entire government (Taliban) at your beck and call, a fortress in Tora Bora where thousands of guards and henchmen were at your disposal and tens of thousands of NATO troops weren’t in the region?
Did you know that bin Laden and the Taliban have the entire northern part of Pakistan as a safe haven, endorsed by George W. Bush? They are much safer in Warziristan, than they were in Afghanistan, and they have a huge population of radical Pakistanis, and Saudi Wahabis from which to draw recruits and supplies.
Anyone paying attention knows that. But if your believe his stated goal of recreating the Caliphate, losing Afghanistan was a setback. Territorial loss is territorial loss. Besides, he has had Waziristan as a base since he CIA days fighting the Soviets.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:25 pmWere they even ready, operationally speaking, to attack the US at that time?
An excellent question, again unknowable.
Why is this unknowable? It seems to me that any decent investigation into the incident would have a timeline of planning and preparation and would have resulted in a much clearer understanding of ALL events leading up to 9/11… but it seems that ‘no one could have predicted…’ and ‘no one can ever know’ is all we can expect from our investigations and investigators?
June 24th, 2008 at 12:28 pmKeltoi Says:
barfly Says:
Were they even ready, operationally speaking, to attack the US at that time?
An excellent question, again unknowable.
Wrong again. The answer to that question is very known. In 2000, some of the hijackers were in flight school, while others were not even yet in the country. So, the answer is, no, they were not ready, operationally speaking in 2000.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:32 pmKeltoi Says:
Besides, he has had Waziristan as a base since he CIA days fighting the Soviets.
And he still has it with the blessing of George W. Bush. On;y now, he is happily using it as a base to attack NATO troops, instead of Russian troops. That’s some progress.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:34 pmKeltoi,
June 24th, 2008 at 12:38 pmMaybe, just maybe, the 9/11 perpetrators were planning an attack during the 2000 presidential elections. Maybe, just maybe, the leader of the United States of America at that time was so concerned over such an attack, that he delegated a committee to oversee any unusual activity, which prevented an attack.
And maybe, just maybe, the newly elected (although not popular) leader felt no need for such a committee, in fact, was such an ego maniac, that while he distanced himself from the former leader, he inadvertently “opened” the window of opportunity for the terrorists, and voila….9/11.
And maybe, just maybe, our current candidates should focus in on solving the issues at hand, and not have members excitedly exclaim that another attack on US soil, resulting in devastating loss of lives, would benefit them! These are hypotheticals, and are actually quite revealing.
Is this the only chance McSame has of defeating Obama?
Keltoi Says:
Wrong again. The answer to that question is very known. In 2000, some of the hijackers were in flight school, while others were not even yet in the country. So, the answer is, no, they were not ready, operationally speaking in 2000.
You’re right on the logistics, but what I am saying is unknowable is the relationship between the intial decision to launch those attacks and the US political cycle. We were in AQ’s sites from the time of Desert Storm onward. Did they just not have the idea to use planes as missiles til the late 90’s or did they not begin to actively pursue it til then?
June 24th, 2008 at 12:40 pm——————————————————————————–
shoeless Says:
——————————————————————————–
Keltoi Says:
Besides, he has had Waziristan as a base since he CIA days fighting the Soviets.
And he still has it with the blessing of George W. Bush. On;y now, he is happily using it as a base to attack NATO troops, instead of Russian troops. That’s some progress.
I take it you favor invading Waziristan?
June 24th, 2008 at 12:42 pmKeltoi,
Maybe, just maybe, the 9/11 perpetrators were planning an attack during the 2000 presidential elections. Maybe, just maybe, the leader of the United States of America at that time was so concerned over such an attack, that he delegated a committee to oversee any unusual activity, which prevented an attack.
And maybe, just maybe, the newly elected (although not popular) leader felt no need for such a committee, in fact, was such an ego maniac, that while he distanced himself from the former leader, he inadvertently “opened” the window of opportunity for the terrorists, and voila….9/11.
And maybe, just maybe, our current candidates should focus in on solving the issues at hand, and not have members excitedly exclaim that another attack on US soil, resulting in devastating loss of lives, would benefit them! These are hypotheticals, and are actually quite revealing.
You have nicely summarized the Clinton narrative. There are some problems with it, but it is one version of how things went down, true.
Is this the only chance McSame has of defeating Obama?
No. This election is far more up for grabs than most here would like to believe, though I do think Obama has the inside track. There is a looooonnngg way to the election, lots of things could happen in Tom Brokaw’s UFO (Unforseen Occurences) department.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:45 pmKeltoi Says:
…what I am saying is unknowable is the relationship between the intial decision to launch those attacks and the US political cycle. We were in AQ’s sites from the time of Desert Storm onward.
bin Laden has always contended that the attacks were retribution for the establishment of US bases on sacred Saudi soil. So, yes, we were in AQ’s sites from the time of Desert Storm. This is no secret. That’s why Bill Clinton was trying to kill bin Laden.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:45 pmKeltoi Says:
I take it you favor invading Waziristan?
I didn’t say that. I think it was a mistake for Musharraf to call a cease fire with the Taliban, and a mistake for Bush to give his approval for a safe haven for them in Warziristan. It was another mistake for Bush to call off the recent special ops action to take out bin Laden and many of his top officers in Warziristan.
Since Musharraf and Bush formally established a safe haven in northern Pakistan for al Qaeda, violnce in up dramtically in Afghanistan.
Pakistani-Taliban Pact Part of Efforts To Secure Afghan Border
06 September 2006
White House says cease-fire deal would not allow al-Qaida members to go free
Washington — The Bush administration has been apprised of the Pakistani government’s September 5 cease-fire deal with tribal Taliban in north Waziristan on the country’s border with Afghanistan.
The Bush administration does not believe reports that the cease-fire agreement “throws open the border area to al-Qaida,” saying that such a scenario “does not make sense for the government of Pakistan,” Snow said.
He added that the Bush administration wants to assist the Pakistani government in securing north Waziristan and in going after al-Qaida, and the administration believes the cease-fire “is consistent with those efforts.”
June 24th, 2008 at 12:54 pmYou have nicely summarized the Clinton narrative.
That also summarizes the Clarke narrative, strange that those two should agree and Bush should have such a starkly different perception of events…
June 24th, 2008 at 1:02 pm——————————————————————————–
belac Says:
——————————————————————————–
You have nicely summarized the Clinton narrative.
That also summarizes the Clarke narrative, strange that those two should agree and Bush should have such a starkly different perception of events…
Why is that strange? Clarke is Scott McClellan, 2003 edition. His criticism of Bush is notorious, though he also criticized Clinton.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:18 pmSounds like a gadget RUCerious may have invented. Do you see an electrical plug on it, or is it powered by wind? Bullshit?
Ah ha!
RUCerious LLC, is not responsible for any such gadget, contraption, RubeGoldberg machine or any other device with that name. A BarackOCarter? Please.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:19 pm——————————————————————————–
shoeless Says:
——————————————————————————–
Keltoi Says:
I take it you favor invading Waziristan?
I didn’t say that. I think it was a mistake for Musharraf to call a cease fire with the Taliban, and a mistake for Bush to give his approval for a safe haven for them in Warziristan. It was another mistake for Bush to call off the recent special ops action to take out bin Laden and many of his top officers in Warziristan.
Well, to be fair, that ceasefire was 2006 and has since been discarded. As to the Black Ops, well, by nature of their very Blackness we don’t know what is going on.
One thing you and I agree on, this thing will never be over so long as Waziristan is a safe haven for AQ. But the Paki army gets its butt kicked every time it goes there, and half the Paks are sympahtetic to the Taliban anyway. By virtue of geography and the ferocity of the tribes there, that will be a very hard nut to crack.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:21 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
I am just sitting here in awe of Daryll’s performance today.
Yeah, after reading that idiot’s posts today, I will have to agree with you ralph, Daryll is not who he pretends to be at all.
Just another Repukian tool, trying to act christian, obviously an act.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:27 pmI would not be so sure that Daryll is just another tool…
June 24th, 2008 at 1:30 pmOnce D’s cushy DOD contract dries up, and he’s out on the street hawking God on street corners, we’ll see a really different side of him. Remember all those pious, man must work homilies? Yeah, right.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:33 pmSo, you excuse Bush’s establishment of a safe haven for al Qaeda in Warziristan, even thought it is directly responsible for allowing al Qaeda to strengthen it attacks by saying that mistake is no longer in effect. Since then, the Pakistanis have done little against al Qaeda.
Why do you hate our troops in Afghanistan?
Keltoi Says:
As to the Black Ops, well, by nature of their very Blackness we don’t know what is going on.
Rumsfeld called off 2005 plan to capture top Qaeda figures</strong
A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in the tribal areas of Pakistan was aborted at the last minute after top officials in the Bush administration decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.
The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group’s operations.
But the mission was called off after Donald Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected the 11th-hour appeal of Porter Goss, then the director of central intelligence, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:33 pmWhy is that strange? Clarke is Scott McClellan, 2003 edition. His criticism of Bush is notorious, though he also criticized Clinton.
Just because his critisism of Bush is well known we should discount it?
June 24th, 2008 at 1:33 pmI don’t understand this argument…
Yes, lots of people are critical of Bush, Clarke is an expert in counter-terrorism… shouldn’t we listen to his advice/opinion?
I understand that reasonable people can disagree, but doesn’t the former head of counter-terrorism for the NSC deserve a little more refuting than ‘he’s a critic of Bush and can be ignored…’
Why is his interpretation of events wrong? He wasn’t always a critic of Bush, you know… neither was McClellan.
That’s not even close to fair, Keltoi.
Richard Clarke was a respected security official under Clinton and under Bush. His public statements have all been well-informed and consistent.
His public criticism of Bush was first voiced when Bush had monster approval ratings, so there was no convenient timing involved. His charges are all backed up by evidence (Cheney’s Terrorism Task Force schedule, for instance).
Scott McClellan was criticized while in his duty as press secretary for his generally bumbling performance and his tell-all slips nicely into the downstream of Bush criticisms for all quarters. His charges are mostly opinion and personal impression.
In short, Richard Clarke has been a credible, authoritative voice from the start.
Scott McClellan, while a believeable figure in my opinion, is much less credible. Not even in the same league as Richard Clarke. For you to try to equate the two is pathetic.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:36 pmbelac Says:
‘he’s a critic of Bush and can be ignored…’
Canned RNC response. It’s good for critics on every issue, from Bush’s failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, to Bush’s failures on the economy and the environment.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:37 pmIsn’t it true that your party believes that terrorists in Gitmo should have a chance to appeal their case?
–Daryl the Satanic worshipper of MURDERER Bush the COXUCKER punk TRAITOR.
No, REAL Americans believe that HUMANS have HUMAN RIGHTS.
That lets out TRAITORS like YOU and COXUCKER punk Bush…
PROVE they are “terrorists”, by PUTTING THEM ON TRIAL and SHOWING EVIDENCE.
Oh, you can’t meet the STANDARDS OF AMERICAN JUSTICE.
How SAD for TRAITORS like Bush and you.
May you BURN FOR ETERNITY for your support of this MURDERER Bush the COXUCKER punk TRAITOR to the USA.
I can’t WAIT until he DROPS DEAD and joins his MASTER Satan and TRAITOR Ronnie Reagan, now DEAD and BURNING for his GENOCIDE…
June 24th, 2008 at 1:38 pmBy virtue of geography and the ferocity of the tribes there, that will be a very hard nut to crack.
Or, impossible in the current political climate, here and abroad.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:57 pmNot to worry - there are no fascists in Heaven.
Guess that means there will be no neo-cons in heaven then as they are no better than the Nazi’s.
911=Inside job
June 24th, 2008 at 1:58 pmshoeless Says:
So, you excuse Bush’s establishment of a safe haven for al Qaeda in Warziristan, even thought it is directly responsible for allowing al Qaeda to strengthen it attacks by saying that mistake is no longer in effect. Since then, the Pakistanis have done little against al Qaeda.
This aborted mission was in 2005 - are you saying there have been no Black Ops since? And if they are successful, by their very nature you don’t hear about them.
There have also been numerous Predator strikes in the area since the new CIA chief took over.
I don’t think Bush created a safe haven - the Paki army has never controlled it; neither did the Brits. In other words, it is not physically possible to take over that area short of a massive invasion, which again, you do not seem to advocate.
And it is true that our actions in Waziristan create havoc in Pakistan. Pakistan has nukes and lots of radicals wanting to take that country over….it is a complete tightrope act, I and many others here have kicked around what to do about it and I have yet to hear a good option.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:00 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
That’s not even close to fair, Keltoi.
Richard Clarke was a respected security official under Clinton and under Bush. His public statements have all been well-informed and consistent.
Scott McClellan, while a believeable figure in my opinion, is much less credible. Not even in the same league as Richard Clarke. For you to try to equate the two is pathetic.
My point was, when your critics (Clinton, Clarke, McClellan) all have similar viewpoints, that is not too odd.
I must confess, I don’t like Clarke’s personal affect, it isn’t rational on my part but the guy’s phyisogamy bugs me. Eveytime I see him my smarm detector goes off…again, not rational.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:06 pmMy point was, when your critics (Clinton, Clarke, McClellan) all have similar viewpoints, that is not too odd.
What is odd is that all these people from vastly disparate political backgrounds should have become critics of Bush and share the same viewpoint…
I dislike Bolton’s personal affect, but that is not the reason I disagree with his assessment of world affairs…
Why, when so many from so many different areas are so critical of Bush and his version of History and there are so many supporting facts to back up the criticism, do you feel that Bush’s narrative deserves equal time?
That’s what I find odd…
June 24th, 2008 at 2:12 pmKeltoi Says:
I and many others here have kicked around what to do about it and I have yet to hear a good option.
So you just stick with Bush’s option of allowing a safe haven for al Qaeda and the Taliban right across the border of Afghanistan. How’s that working for you?
June 24th, 2008 at 2:16 pmbelac Says:
What is odd is that all these people from vastly disparate political backgrounds should have become critics of Bush and share the same viewpoint…
It doesn’t matter. When anyone criticizes the Bushgod, his worshippers take a personal dislike to that individual, no matter their feelings before the blaspheme occurred.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:19 pmshoeless Says:
——————————————————————————–
Keltoi Says:
I and many others here have kicked around what to do about it and I have yet to hear a good option.
So you just stick with Bush’s option of allowing a safe haven for al Qaeda and the Taliban right across the border of Afghanistan. How’s that working for you?
BAD.
What do you suggest?
June 24th, 2008 at 2:20 pmKeltoi Says:
——————————————————————————–
shoeless Says:
——————————————————————————–
Keltoi Says:
I and many others here have kicked around what to do about it and I have yet to hear a good option.
So you just stick with Bush’s option of allowing a safe haven for al Qaeda and the Taliban right across the border of Afghanistan. How’s that working for you?
BAD.
What do you suggest?
I am serious - B-2 runs? A fleet of AC-130’s that loiter over the area based in Afghanistan? Black Ops? Again, we may well be doing that already.
The truce Mush made with them was the result of diplomacy - that didn’t work.
What do you do?
June 24th, 2008 at 2:23 pmWhat do you suggest?
Actually listening to the Generals and Intelligence Professionals and re-allocating resources to Afghanistan- drawing down in Iraq- restarting negotiations and diplomacy across the board- Getting Europe involved in the rebuilding of Iraq and prosecution of Al Queada as we have lost all credibility on both issues- immediately ceasing the torture and unlawful detention without representation of ‘enemy combatants’ that is recruiting new terrorists so well… etc. etc.
People actually have thought this through you know…
June 24th, 2008 at 2:26 pmThe point is Keltoi-
June 24th, 2008 at 2:30 pmI am not a counter-terrorism expert- I assume few of us are… why are you so quick to dismiss the opinions of the actual experts? Why do you seek our ‘plan’? People are paid to figure this stuff out and Bush is ignoring them…
belac Says:
——————————————————————————–
What do you suggest?
Actually listening to the Generals and Intelligence Professionals and re-allocating resources to Afghanistan- drawing down in Iraq- restarting negotiations and diplomacy across the board- Getting Europe involved in the rebuilding of Iraq and prosecution of Al Queada as we have lost all credibility on both issues- immediately ceasing the torture and unlawful detention without representation of ‘enemy combatants’ that is recruiting new terrorists so well… etc. etc.
People actually have thought this through you know…
I see nothing on your list that will have the effect of dislodging AQ from Waziristan. Even if we abandon Iraq and send those troops to Afghanistan, if you are not willing to have them cross the border, what good are they? As far as getting Europe involved, good luck. NATO already has troops there, and we have been begging for more for years to little avail. Also, many European countries send troops only on the condition that they not go to areas where they might see combat - can you imagaine what a joke they must seem to the tribesmen in Waziristan?
So, nice try, but that set of suggestions is pretty thin beer. Try again?
June 24th, 2008 at 2:34 pmYes, Clarke was critical of Clinton and supportive of Bush initially, but if you read his book the reason he changed his opinion of Clinton and his opinion of Bush is that one of them listened to Clarke’s opinion and took it seriously, and the other didn’t… guess which one…
June 24th, 2008 at 2:34 pmSo, nice try, but that set of suggestions is pretty thin beer. Try again?\
See #148…
June 24th, 2008 at 2:35 pmbelac Says:
——————————————————————————–
The point is Keltoi-
I am not a counter-terrorism expert- I assume few of us are… why are you so quick to dismiss the opinions of the actual experts? Why do you seek our ‘plan’? People are paid to figure this stuff out and Bush is ignoring them…
Okay, that is fair, but I consume as much news as humanly possible from multiple sources and I have heard of no “experts” who know how to get AQ out of the FATA. I’d love to hear a good working suggestion, but the list you recommend in 147 just doesn’t seem like it will have the effect you want.
The people living in the FATA are some of the toughest, most ferocious fanatics in the world. Talking with them is highly, highly unlikely to result in their surrender. At some point, we are going to have to either admit defeat against AQ or go in there after them - the Pakis are just not up to to job and haven’t been since they became a country.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:38 pmThe Pakistani’s are playing their own game, and they are winning… just as the Iranians are winning… just as the Saudi’s are winning… just as OBL is winning…
June 24th, 2008 at 2:45 pmThe only country that doesn’t seem capable of getting anything it wants from this situation is the United States… and that is because Bush doesn’t realize he’s being played…
when are we gonna get in the game?
I agree with you belac, but would add the option of special ops to take out al Qaeda leaders and disrupt their bases in Warziristan.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:46 pmI agree with you belac, but would add the option of special ops to take out al Qaeda leaders and disrupt their bases in Warziristan.
The problem is we’re streched so thin on the ground in Iraq that we don’t have the options in Afaghanistan… we turned our back on the real terrorists to create new ones in Iraq… and that’s what the experts said would happen at the time- this idea that no one spoke out against this invasion is a myth, just as the idea that there were no options in Warziristan prior to the invasion is a myth… we don’t have much leverage now- but that is because we pissed it away…
June 24th, 2008 at 2:51 pmDaryll Says:
Isn’t it true that your party believes that terrorists in Gitmo should have a chance to appeal their case?
So Daryll, how can they “appeal their case” when no charges have ever been brought against them and they have not been found guilty of anything.
I and anyone with an ounce of humanity inside them (you are excluded) want these people to have the right to know what they are being accused of and to have their day in court.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:57 pmDaryll Says:
One, please refrain from using Hussein with my name. I do not support bombing others as a method of conversion. My question to you, do you love terrorists?
You don’t support bombing others as a method of conversion. Then you must be really mad at Bush because he bombed the shit out of Iraq to try to convert them to democracy. My question to you is, do you love the terrorists who are the Bush Crime Family?
June 24th, 2008 at 3:00 pmYes belac, that was one of the many serious blunders made by George W. Bush. Months before the invasion of Iraq, Bush secretly pulled most of the special ops forces out of Afghanistan,, and sent them to Iraq, allowing al Qaeda and the Taliban time to regroup. He spent nearly $1 billion of money appropriated for Afghanistan in doing so. That misappropriation of funds was in itself an impeachable offense.
June 24th, 2008 at 3:01 pmAs I see it, the main reason the US hasn’t been attacked since 2001 is not because we’ve been so good at preventing attacks, but because Bush and the neocons have been doing al-Qaeda’s work so efficiently that al-Qaeda’s had no reason to interrupt them. The George W. Bush doll: wind it up and it wrecks and disgraces the country. You might say that 9-11 was Osama bin Laden’s way of winding up Bush. For anyone unfamiliar with the wind-up doll meme, btw, here’s an intro.
I figure that if Obama wins in November, our self-destruction will slow way down and Al-Qaeda will need to do something to drive us properly nuts again. If, on the other hand, McCain should become president, they’ll have us right where they want us and there’ll be no need for more attacks.